EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Higher Education (Admissions)

Charles Clarke: I am delighted today to commend to the House the report from Professor Steven Schwartz, vice-chancellor of Brunei University, on fair admissions to higher education.
	Professor Schwartz and his group have over the last 15 months carried out an extensive and thorough examination of the processes for admission to higher education and have consulted widely on two occasions before presenting their conclusions. I am indebted to Professor Schwartz and all who have worked so diligently with him on this important task.
	Responsibility for admissions to higher education rests firmly with the institutions themselves. They have to be satisfied that the students they admit have the ability and potential to complete their studies successfully. That is right and proper and this report unreservedly maintains that position. It also confirms, on the basis of the evidence, that admissions processes in our universities and colleges of higher education are generally fair. Nevertheless, Government has an interest in ensuring that admissions processes also command the confidence of prospective students, their parents, advisers and teachers. That is why I invited Professor Schwartz to identify options for institutions to adopt when assessing the merit, achievement and potential of applicants for their courses.
	The report "Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice" will stand as a practical guide for institutions as they review and develop their admissions policies, practices and systems. Everyone involved with admissions to higher education has a deep concern to ensure that they are fair and that they are seen to be fair. In pursuit of that end, Professor Schwartz has identified five underlying principles that I wholeheartedly endorse as the basis for fair admissions.
	These principles will support:
	transparency in admissions processes;
	selection for merit, potential and diversity:
	reliability, validity and relevance of assessment methods;
	minimising barriers for applicants: and
	professionalism in all aspects of admissions services.
	Taken together, the five principles provide the bedrock for building fair admissions systems that provide equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations. The implementation guidelines also offered by Professor Schwartz will help institutions in mainstreaming the principles within their own admissions systems. I hope that all universities and colleges will take immediate steps to introduce the principles and guidelines within their own arrangements.
	The report is more than just a guide however. It is also a call for action by higher education institutions and across the wider education establishment including some matters for Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
	These include:
	setting up a new Centre of Expertise on Admissions. I can confirm that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will work with Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to see how this Centre can be established, perhaps under the umbrella of the HE Academy where it would dovetail well with the role for staff development.
	research to assess the feasibility and reliability of a single, national test for potential that is not fully demonstrated by exam results. I support this as an early task for the new Centre of Expertise on Admissions and will look carefully at the outcomes of the study alongside the final report from Mike Tomlinson on 14–19 qualifications reform that is due in the autumn, before deciding on the way forward. What we must not have is tests for tests sake, but if there is a genuine need, it would be right to explore the opportunity.
	ensuring that consistent levels of advice and guidance are available to all applicants. Similar messages are emerging from Mike Tomlinson's working group as well as from the End to End Review of Careers Education and Guidance that my Department has undertaken. As part of its work on the Youth Green Paper—to be published in the autumn—the Department is considering how it can best ensure that all young people are able to access and interpret the information and advice they need to make well-informed decisions.
	the introduction of a radically different system for applications to higher education whereby students will not apply for higher education courses until they know their exam results. I am concerned that over very many years such a system has acquired the reputation of a holy grail for the HE admissions world—desirable but not achievable. I am aware of the complexity of the practical difficulties that would need to be overcome before a post-qualification application (PQA) system could be introduced, but I remain persuaded by the arguments for PQA which have been endorsed by Professor Schwartz and his group. It must be fairer and more transparent for students to know their final results before making important choices about where and what to study, and this must also aid decision-making by universities. PQA could also help many students, including those from families without a tradition of HE, to feel more confident in applying to our leading universities. I have therefore asked Sir Alan Wilson, the Director General for Higher Education and the former Vice Chancellor of Eeeds University, to lead the work on implementation for PQA. He will be assisted by an implementation group which he will establish. Sir Alan will consult with all interested parties. engaging fully the devolved administrations, and advise me on the arrangements and an appropriate timescale for the introduction of PQA.
	Finally, Professor Schwartz has asked that I initiate a further review of admissions after three years as a means to assess progress in implementing his group's recommendations. I accept that it would be sensible to follow up this initial review and that three years will allow time for some of the more immediate benefits to have been realised and for appropriate action to be underway to secure the longer term ones. I shall commission the further review in due course.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Housing and Planning in the Regions

Keith Hill: I am pleased to announce the publication of a consultation paper concerning the merger of the regional housing boards and the regional planning bodies.
	The paper responds to one of the recommendations in Kate Barker's review of housing supply (ISBN 1–84532–010–7) published in March. We have already accepted her recommendation that responsibility for housing and planning regional strategies should be merged. The paper proposes that responsibility should rest with regional assemblies. This is in line with our general policy on devolving decision-making and the broadening of the role of assemblies on integrating regional strategies.
	The paper also covers proposals for taking forward Kate Barker's recommendation for the provision of independent advice to the regions to strengthen the evidence base that supports regional housing and planning strategies and increase the transparency of the processes for producing these strategies.
	Consultation will run until 30 November 2004. Copies of the consultation paper have been made available in the Libraries of the House and it is available on the ODPM website.

Poor Planning Authorities

Keith Hill: In my statement of 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 57WS, I explained our approach to achieving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's public service agreement six (PSA6) target. This requires all local planning authorities to complete local development frameworks by 2006 and to perform at or above best value targets for development control (BV109) by 2006 with interim milestones to be agreed in the service delivery agreement. The revised PSA6 target, announced in July as part of the outcome of the spending review, will require all local planning authorities to sustain this level of performance to 2008.
	We are now one year nearer to the 2006–07 target date and, whilst local authorities' performance overall has shown encouraging progress, there is still much to be done. I am therefore setting out today ways in which we are working with local planning authorities and strengthening our strategy of engagement with those that are performing poorly in their handling of planning applications.
	We will continue to designate poorly performing authorities as planning standards authorities on an annual basis, as described in my statement of last year. Where their performance falls below specified thresholds, in terms of the percentage of applications determined within the target time frame, then they are asked to achieve specific performance standards in the following year. In 2004–05 both the thresholds and the standards were raised by 2–5 percentage points. This was a relatively modest increase to give local authorities further time to make use of the additional resources available though planning delivery grant. We envisage a more significant ratcheting up of both the thresholds and standards for 2005–06 (by up to 10 percentage points) as a necessary step towards meeting the targets in 2006–07, as follows:
	
		Percentage of applications determined within time
		
			   2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 
		
		
			 Major Threshold 28 30 40 50 
			  Standard to be met 50 52 57 60 
			 Minor Threshold 37 40 50 55 
			  Standard to be met 55 58 63 65 
			 Other Threshold 55 60 65 70 
			  Standard to be met 70 73 75 80 
		
	
	Threshold = performance below this level at previous year ending June would qualify authority for standard.
	Standard = percentage achievement required within 13 weeks for major and eight weeks for minor and other applications.
	We will encourage authorities to draw up trajectories and improvement plans as soon as they are identified as potential standards authorities, and will review their progress against trajectories shortly after they are designated. Help in this process will be made available, including support from the new planning advisory service that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has invited the Improvement and Development Agency to host. Further support comes in the form of continued funding through the planning delivery grant after 2005–06, as announced in July following the spending review.
	In the course of the year for which an authority has been designated as a standards authority, my officials will contact the authority's planning service to collect information on what steps have been taken or will be taken to improve its planning performance. This will be assessed to determine if further action will be needed to support performance improvements. Regard will be given to authorities' progress towards the specific performance standards they were set and, in the longer term, authorities' ability to reach the targets set out in ODPM's public service agreement six (PSA6).
	Engagement with an authority will be reviewed at the end of the year for which it has been designated as a standards authority in light of whether it has achieved the standards specified in the best value order and any demonstrable sustained improvement in performance over the period. We will remain engaged with authorities until we are confident that a sustainable level of improvement has been achieved, with the level of engagement proportionate to the risk of failure.
	Authorities causing serious concern will be asked to self-assess their performance against trajectories and draw up improvement plans to share with the relevant Government office for the regions, who in turn will report on progress to ODPM on a quarterly basis. If performance continues to deteriorate then we will consider the case for further more direct intervention. In doing so we would adopt the proportionate approach outlined in my earlier statement and would have regard to the authorities' CPA status.
	Authorities causing a lesser degree of concern will be asked to self-assess performance against trajectories and share their conclusions with the relevant Government office for the regions on a quarterly basis. Government Offices will report to ODPM by exception, where performance shows significant deterioration.
	I will consider the case for relaxing the intensity of engagement or for disengagement with other authorities where the annualised performance in all three categories of application is on or above the relevant planning standard and the authority's own trajectory for two consecutive quarters.
	Over the last year 39 planning standards authorities were found to have made significant improvements in performance, and outstanding improvements in a number of cases. I congratulate them all on their success in improving their performance and I expect to see them making further rapid progress towards meeting and exceeding the national targets. The 39 authorities were:
	Bedford District Council
	London Borough of Brent
	Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority
	Bristol City Council
	Calderdale Met. Borough Council
	Canterbury City Council
	Chichester District Council
	Durham City Council
	London Borough of Ealing
	East Cambridgeshire District Council
	East Hampshire District Council
	Epsom and Ewell District Council
	Fareham District Council
	Forest Heath District Council
	Gloucester District Council
	Havant District Council
	Isle of Wight Unitary Authority
	Kerrier District Council
	London Borough of Lambeth
	Leeds City Council
	Mansfield District Council
	Medway Unitary Authority
	Milton Keynes Unitary Authority
	North Devon District Council
	Oldham Met. Borough Council
	Reading Borough Council
	Reigate and Banstead District Council
	London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
	Rossendale District Council
	Sheffield City Council
	Spelthorne District Council
	Taunton Deane District Council
	Three Rivers District Council
	Vale of White Horse District Council
	Wansbeck District Council
	Wear Valley District Council
	West Lindsey District Council
	Weymouth and Portland District Council
	Worcester District Council
	The new planning advisory service (PAS) will play an important role in supporting local planning authorities. This includes through a newly developed improvement planning programme. Already the PAS has held an introductory event on improvement planning which will be followed up with a series of regional workshops and other ongoing support. Also as part of the PAS a new advisory panel on large applications is now gearing up to assist a number of local planning authorities in the high demand regions of London and the wider south east.
	The PSA6 targets are challenging but we believe achievable. We will continue to monitor progress and to keep our strategy for engagement under review as we approach the target year of 2006–07.

North East Regional Assembly

Nick Raynsford: I am today publishing a consultation paper on draft guidance to the Electoral Commission on drawing up the constituencies for a North East regional assembly.
	If, following a yes vote in the referendum on the establishment of a regional assembly in the North East, the Secretary of State proposes that a regional assembly should be established, the Government will direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on the drawing up of the electoral areas for a North East regional assembly. This direction will be accompanied by statutory guidance on what the Electoral Commission should take into account in preparing its advice. It is this guidance on which we are consulting.
	The consultation paper includes a full draft of the guidance the Secretary of State proposes to issue. The Secretary of State proposes to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on:
	the number of electoral areas;
	the electoral areas into which the North East is to be divided; and
	the name by which these electoral areas are to be known.
	Therefore, the draft guidance sets out the matters the Government feel that the Electoral Commission should take into account when preparing its advice. The Secretary of State is not proposing to seek the Commission's advice on the total number of members for a North East assembly.
	A copy of this consultation paper will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and in the "Regions" section of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. The end date for the consultation is 22 October 2004.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Hong Kong

Bill Rammell: We welcome the fact that Legislative Council elections were generally well run. Clearly there were a number of technical problems on the day in some locations and we understand that the SAR Government and the Electoral Affairs Commission will be looking into these. That said, there appears to have been fair treatment for all candidates and we have no reason to question the validity of the outcome.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Offers in the 22nd Offshore and 12th Inshore (Oil and Gas) Licensing Rounds

Mike O'Brien: I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of the 22nd offshore and 12th onshore oil and gas licensing rounds, I am today offering 97 offshore licences (58 of them under "promote" terms, seven under frontier terms and 32 under the traditional terms) and 26 petroleum and development licences for the onshore area. The companies will have a fixed period in which to accept the offers made.
	This is a very good result and demonstrates the keen interest still being shown in exploiting the United Kingdom's hydrocarbon resources.
	A list of the successful companies in the rounds can be viewed on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/.

Regulator of Community Interest Companies and Sectoral Regulators

Jacqui Smith: To assist discussion of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill in Standing Committee, it may be helpful if I outline how the Government intend the powers of the new regulator of community interest companies (CICs), created by clause 24 of the Bill, to interact with those of other regulators in particular sectors of activity, and in particular the regulators of registered social landlords (RSLs).
	The consultation paper on CICs which the Government published last year said that the CIC regulator
	"will work with other companies' regulators, and with any sectoral regulators with relevant competences, to ensure that there is a single interface between CICs and their stakeholders on one hand, and regulators on the other".1
	The consultation confirmed that this is the right approach, and that simplicity of regulation is highly valued by social enterprises. The single most important step in achieving it is to integrate the new regulator with companies house. The CIC regulator will therefore be located in companies house, and the processes for setting up a CIC and making annual community interest company reports will be linked to the equivalent processes for all companies.
	The consultation paper referred to "sectoral regulators with relevant competences" because CICs potentially have a wide range of uses. Some CICs may therefore operate in sectors that are already subject to legal and regulatory constraints in matters such as the use of assets. In such cases, the Government are determined that overlapping regulation should be avoided.
	We have already identified one sector where work is necessary to achieve this. registered social landlords, or RSLs, are subject to statutory constraints on the use of their assets, and on their activities, under housing legislation. The RSL sector is regulated in England by the Housing Corporation, in Scotland by Communities Scotland, and in Wales by the Housing Directorate of the National Assembly for Wales.
	RSLs currently use a variety of legal forms, and we believe that some may be interested in becoming CICs, or in establishing CIC subsidiaries. The Government are particularly mindful of the need to avoid complicating the regulation of RSLs that choose to use the CIC form, in the light of a recent report on the Housing Corporation by this House's Committee on Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions, which stressed the need to streamline the regulation of RSLs and to avoid duplication.
	We intend to achieve this streamlining for RSLs using the CIC form, by making orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, to enable the CIC regulator to delegate relevant powers to the appropriate RSL regulators in England and Wales. The orders will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. The position is rather different in Scotland because of the devolution settlement, and we are in discussion with the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland about the appropriate way to arrange the delegation of powers.
	The detail of which powers should be delegated to the RSL regulators is being discussed by the Government, the RSL regulators and the devolved administrations. The principle will be that the CIC regulator should delegate those powers that duplicate or overlap with those of the RSL regulators. Regulatory action in respect of RSLs using the CIC form will then normally be the responsibility of the relevant RSL regulator, using either their powers under housing legislation, or the powers delegated to them by the CIC regulator.
	The real value of delegating powers in this way is that it will allow the RSL regulators to take the clear lead in regulating RSL CICs. Those CICs can then be confident that the relevant RSL regulator in England, Scotland or Wales is the key body with which they must deal, in respect of their obligations both as RSLs and as CICs. Delegated powers will be exercisable concurrently by the CIC regulator and the sectoral bodies, but we expect that the CIC regulator will only have a limited "backroom" role in respect of RSLs using the CIC form, for instance in agreeing their registration as CICs. Clause 39 of this Bill allows the CIC regulator to use his supervisory powers only to the extent necessary to maintain confidence in CICs, and it will not normally be appropriate for him to act where he has delegated those powers to a sectoral regulator.
	1 "Enterprise for Communities: proposals for a Community Interest Company", para 46, published March 2003, available at www.dti.gov.uk/cics.